Monday, April 5, 2010

When Language Attacks

Those are not freaking Pit Bulls, you idiots. I call serious exaggeration and fear mongering on this one. "“They’re not pit bulls,” Contreras said. “We hate pit bulls.”" Oh, well, geez, thanks. We hate you too. Just kidding. But anyways, the dogs aren't Pit Bulls, but hey, let's ban Pit Bulls. Logic, I lost it!

An attack implies physical contact. I can safely report that thankfully this was not the case.

"For 20 years, Diane Odegaard has enjoyed morning walks near her home in Mitchell."

So for twenty years this person has walked near her home without incident. That means for 20 years no dog has threatened her. Yet now that she has been "attacked", the entire city has to be concerned about Pit Bulls?

“They fanned out about 6 feet apart right in front of me,” said Odegaard, who had two of her own dogs with her. “I was about hysterical because I thought these dogs were going to attack me and my dogs and kill us.”

Now I am not diminishing this person's fear. Having three unknown, loose dogs approach is scary. Somehow, some way, these three dogs did not go on a mauling spree. In fact, all they seemed to have done is expressed an interest in interacting. Three really aggressive, tenacious, "game" dogs would hardly be deterred by space, pepper spray and a piddly barrier like a shovel. Point of fact, Odegaard is right and we are to believe what anti-dog zealots say about Pit Bulls, she and her two dogs should be dead!

Parker said the dogs — a male and two puppies — are pit bull/boxer mixes.

Wait a second, Pit Bulls are under scrutiny because three mixed breed dogs approached a woman?

“The pups were very friendly when I was down there,” Parker said. “I had no problem when I met them. They’re probably a little more boxer than he is.”

Well, I don't know, Parker. Either these dogs are so dangerous that they required pepper spray and a shovel to ward them off or they're so friendly that you had no problem with them. And if they are so friendly, well golly-gee, by Parker's logic it must be because they have a "little more Boxer"in them. ETA: Well, Parker, you are an idiot. All three dogs are purebred Boxers. So the dad? All Boxer.

Sebert said a recent fourmonth survey conducted by public safety officers found that approximately 10 percent of all local calls for assistance involve complaints about animals. He wasn’t sure of the legality of banning certain dog breeds within city limits, but he said he would be in favor of banning pit bulls in Mitchell.

It's a bit like grasping at oily straws to claim that since 10% of local calls for assistance involve animal-related complaints, Mitchell should just ban Pit Bulls. If I told you that 10% of calls for assistance involve vehicle-related complaints, what would your response be if I then suggested a solution of eliminating blue SUVs?

Sebert said pit bulls can be raised to be “a very friendly dog,” but he also believes them to be a “dangerous breed” that can be trained to be fighters.

If a dog can be a "very friendly dog", can they be members of a "dangerous breed" as well? Either they are "very friendly dogs" or they are all members of a "dangerous breed". You cannot have it both ways.

In the end, though, we have an article discussing the ban of Pit Bulls based on the following evidence:
* Three loose dogs approaching a woman and her dogs
* 10% of calls for assistance are animal related
* The three dogs are Boxers.